Grassroots members send a protest message to leadership through ConservativeHome poll

Last month David Willetts enjoyed a net satisfaction rating of +37%. 61% were satisfied and 24% dissatisfied. In the sharpest change since the beginning of the ConservativeHome monthly survey for any individual shadow cabinet member, David Willetts’ net rating has deteriorated by more than sixty points to a net rating of –24%. Just 36% of Tory members are satisfied with the Shadow Education Secretary and 60% are dissatisfied (16% fairly dissatisfied and 44% very dissatisfied).

David Cameron’s own satisfaction rating was +49% at the end of April. 74% of Tory members were satisfied with his performance and 25% dissatisfied. 61% are now satisfied and 39% dissatisfied – a net satisfaction rating of +22%. The previous low point for David Cameron was in November 2006 when 67% were satisfied and 32% dissatisfied.

Despite this finding 66% of Tory members think it likely that David Cameron will be Prime Minister after the next General Election.

Editor's comment: "My guess is that this is a temporary shift in satisfaction levels. The heat of the grammar schools row has caused these very sharp shifts in sentiment but they should heal in time as the focus (hopefully) shifts back to Conservative policies less likely to antagonise grassroots members. Conservative Party members are probably using this poll to communicate their disappointment to the party leadership - disappointment not just at the policy itself but the way in which the row has been allowed to get out of control. Very few members want a different leader. Most members appreciate David Cameron’s success at attracting moderate voters back to the Tory cause. What members would like, however, is a leader who listens a little more to their concerns and spends more time maintaining the breadth of the conservative coalition – from the centre ground and through to the centre right. David Cameron like any leader deserves loyalty from members but he should remember that it is not his party to do with as he wishes. The grassroots members are stakeholders in the party - who give to the party without expectation of office. They are not deluded. Their concerns are not pointless. They deserve a little more respect.”

1,294 members took this month’s survey. It opened on 31st May and closed on 3rd June. More than 90% of the respondents to this survey took last month’s survey – pointing to a clear change of mind from existing respondents to the ConservativeHome survey rather than any change in population.

Comments

Cameron needs to make sure that this passes. He can do so, but the art will be to manage that without appearing to change tack in the way Hague did after 1999. In my view there are two key connected problems with Cameron's pitch at the moment:

a) He things that on the biggest issues - health, education, the economy - we need to sound like Blair, and when we have radical ideas (which we do), we need to pretend that they are really Blairite ideas. I believe that this issues out of a basic mis-analysis of why we lost in 1997, 2001, and 2005. He thinks that the voters thought we were very right-wing because they viewed our policies on health, education, and the economy as very right-wing. I believe that they perceived us as very right-wing because we chose right-wing topics - immigration, Europe, gypsies.

b) Connected to this, Cameron correctly perceives that we need to reach out to Paternalist voters - affluent middle-class people with a concern for the less well-off, who in the past would naturally have been Conservative voters, but whose attachment to us was weakened in the Thatcher period and who subsequently defected in droves to New Labour. But Cameron believes that the way to get them back is to say: We are just like you. We, too, are just nice decent middle-class people that don't want to rock any boats unnecessarily, mean only the best in health and education, like to recycle, watch David Attenborough, and help save furry animals when we can, yet want to express our help for the poor without risking joining them. I believe that this is an important error, because it isn't true. The modern Conservative Party isn't like that. We are an ideologically-driven Party with all kinds of red lines and principles. We really want to make the world a better place and are happy to rock all kinds of boats to do that if necessary. Instead, to appeal to these Paternalists we should not be pretending to be like them, but instead saying: If you really want to help the poor and the oppressed, then come with us. We have the answers, and we'll use them for that purpose - we are prepared to promise that serving your ends will be our priority, but we reserve the right to do so in our own way. That's the pitch that can keep the Party on board with Cameron. His current pitch will lead to many repetitions of the Grammar Schools debacle, as under pressure his position becomes unpicked from ours because, fundamentally, it isn't what we believe or what we want to do.

The voting intention changes reinforce that theory which I have put here many times that the Tories do well in the polls when they and its leader are making the headlines - good or bad. Also I think that traditional Tories over-state the popularity of a policy of increasing grammar schools and the number of secondary moderns - the latter being something they never seem to put an emphasis on.

The biggest disappointment I have is that opposition should be a period for intellectual renewal and open discussion of policy ideas, as it was in the late 1970's when the Conservatives changed the whole political agenda, but this does not seem to be happening now as Cameron closes off whole areas of political debate as out of bounds. It is sad that this should be the case particularly in health and education where the NHS and the comprehensive education system are two socialist creations totally failing to deliver and in urgent need of a radical rethink.

Indeed. The key things in health and education must, in my view, be to offer up something, argue it out until we have improved it to what we want (so, the first policy offerings the leadership makes must be provisional, rather than "take-it-or-leave-it unless you're delusional"). Then, once we have our policies - which will obviously involve considerable change, after 12 or 13 years of Labour mis-rule - we must emphasize to the public how different they are from the past (not how similar they are - the Cameroon spin strategy), and engage with the public so as to persuade them that we are right, and that what we will offer will work and might even make the world a better place. So, as a concrete example, in Willetts' speech he should have been emphasizing his thoughts about demand-side reform, about the possibility of using vouchers, how much more extensive our use of city academies would be, how much we favour academic streaming and would seek to encourage it, and so on - rather than trying to spin our policy as involving carrying forward a Blairite agenda against the predations of the Big Bad Socialist Monster Gordon Brown.

I felt in the last few days that there was no point posting here until some of my colleagues found their cooler heads. As one of those volunteers “who gives to the Party without expectation of office”, to use the Editor’s phrasing, I feel that I have some insights and rights to comment on this.

I don’t think that this row has been edifying for us, but I think we should be grown-up enough to “share responsibility”. Remember that phrase? – it’s part of the philosophy we’re bringing our policy together around in the coming months. I’m fed up with hearing that “the leadership have picked a fight”. A fight takes at least two. Is “picking a fight” simply moving from one old ideological shibboleth in terms of policy if you think it isn’t doing its job any more? We’re not a right-wing debating society any more (I make no apology for using the phrase), we’re looking to get on, get rid of this Labour government and get things done. Any members (trolls and opposition supporters not included, we usually know who you are!) who have posted intemperately here towards their own Party have to quietly bear their own share of responsibility. It’s all well and good trying to blame your own elected leadership for this (sorry, I’ve just seen the unelected Gordon Brown on the news and really want to beat him) but every member who’s written a blog post or a letter against their own party’s policy has done something to sustain the coverage, and that was their own decision.

I was pretty appalled to see Graham Brady on Sky News this morning with Adam Boulton. He may feel strongly about the issue, rightly or wrongly, but he went about the situation in the wrong way. (I spent most of the interview shouting abuse at the screen, much to the confusion of my visiting mother!) Frankly, as an activist watching his interview this morning, in which I found his comments far less measured than they could have been, he made me think that he’d better not expect the whips’ office to give him the easiest ride on well, anything, for a fairly long time. Especially after I heard him saying that although he regretted this episode the main benefit was how much easier it was to get journalists to listen to him now. Ego 1, Everything Else 0. To get local journalists to listen to me, by the way, I have to make something interesting for them, preferably not by getting in the way of my colleagues delivering.

Finally, I’d like to agree in principle that the opening up of contributions to policy is a fine thing – “the wisdom of crowds” that the Editor sometimes espouses. What I think we’re still getting to grips with is how to moderate that debate and where to find its limits. The blogosphere, for example, may still provide many opportunities for contributions, but for example how do we make use of sensible, moderate contributions while not allowing the right-wing nut-job who used to stand up every year at Party conference to espouse hangin’n’floggin’ to set our home affairs policy? He probably has a pseudonym on ConHome already! There needs to be new ways to channel this flow of ideas, to keep people on board. CH.com is one of them, but I think we need to do more to work out how to manage this without descending in to the kind of acrimony against our Party we’ve seen here in recent weeks. We’re all still figuring it out…

My own suspicion is that Cameron will recover within the next month or so, if all this is allowed to pass. The Telegraph in particular seems keen to string this non-story out for as long as it possibly can, aided and abetted by a handful of MPs (who would be well advised to keep quiet from here on in and allow it to blow over). Willetts is damaged goods though, I expect him to be demoted or despatched with haste in the summer reshuffle - if not I think he will plod on with negative ratings for a long time to come

QUOTE: "I believe that they perceived us as very right-wing because we chose right-wing topics - immigration, Europe, gypsies."

Since when has caring about your country's independence and caring about a completely unrestricted inflow of people into our crowded space been "right wing"?
[I don't hear anyone talking about gypsies!]

A dreadful couple of weeks for Cameron who handled this badly throughout. Nevetheless he is our leader and I hope he makes a very full recovery and returns to the fairly sure touch he displayed before.
An eye opener for this blog too. Some of the commentators here fully deserve the epithet of being in the 'nasty party'. Some of the comments were vicous in the extreme in addition to the usual moronic stuff from the usual suspects.

The mistake that Dave makes is sucking up to people who aren't going to vote for him anyway. Sentimental political correctness and being all things to all people, except natural Conservative voters isn't going to win an election. It's just a nightmare.

I assume that the satisfaction ratings were taken from the votes of Tory Party members and not the bottom feeders, ukippers and frothers-at-the-mouth who infect this site and wish our party ill. I was probably one of the first to give a few pounds to this site to encourage it on its way (and no regrets there). However, I chose not to participate in the recent poll because I have a problem believing that this site is representative of the vast majority of Tories.

I agree with you 100% Richard C. at 22.14.
The really stupid thing,is its a row about a policy we never had, presented as though we had. OK, I would never have passed 11 plus at 11, as my abilities are so skewed against Math.but that is not preducing me against it, its just developmentally wrong. Having sets and streaming in every subject is the only sensible way to go, and you dont need a seperate building.
If you stream properly, even the bullies who normally target "clever" children, will be too enthused by being able to succeed at something, they may well keep their heads down and get on with their own work, which they are now able to do, with a decent grade!!

If you stream properly, even the bullies who normally target "clever" children, will be too enthused by being able to succeed at something

How charming. Soon there will be no violence in schools just sweet little children singing and skipping as they go to school where their smiling teachers will personalise their learning experience and then we will cut to the happy peasants inthe fields bringing in yet another record grain harvest.

The triumph of the Proletariat under the guiding hand of The Party has brought utopia to pass.....been watching those old Soviet propaganda films again ?

Making immigration and Europe priorities are, quite simply, to express an extremely right-wing mindset. That doesn't mean that one should not have policies on these matters at all, or that one should not have views on these issues. They aren't, of course, the only right-wing priorities imaginable. For example, I believe in duty-driven imperialism. But I don't believe that making our main policies those concerning when it is okay to invade other countries would be considered by most voters in any way "moderate". If we made my views on duty-driven imperialism the centrepiece of our offering, we would rightly be viewed by voters as right-wing maniacs. That doesn't mean that our policies should not reflect my view - it just means that that topic shouldn't be our main topic.

Similarly, although our 2001 policies on asylum-seekers and the euro were perfectly sensible in and of themselves (I don't include our little-short-of-dotty 2005 immigration limits policy, but that's another story) - although our 2001 policies on these topics were good policies, the fact that we emphasized them instead of emphasizing our health and education policies indicated that our priorities were very different from those of the voters we needed - a disastrous message to send...

Although I filled in my form to say I was somewhat unhappy with Mr C and very unhappy with Mr W, I made sure to state that I was a member of an Other party, when asked. Trad Tories who are members of UKIP are unlikely to lie about that I would argue, so the data as a survey of Tory Party membership is clean.

The triumph of the Proletariat under the guiding hand of The Party has brought utopia to pass.....been watching those old Soviet propaganda films again ?

No, but you've just been an idiot again - please don't aim such disrespectful comments at a fellow contributor who was trying to make a thoughtful point.

In schools, as in all places in our society, we of course need to defend against and deter violence from those bent on it. But wouldn't be so much better if we did all we could to try and avoid those people becoming bent on it in the first place? That was what Annabel was writing about.

If you don't think her ideas will work, please give us better ones to solve the same problem.

Presuming that you guys are all as truthful with unofficial internet pollsters as you are with the Electoral Commission...

I'm not quite sure why you think that the "Trad Tory" (*cough* I've joined another party) thing gives you a get-out there, Henry - I'm just as happy beating you guys as any other opposition party, get used to it.

I'm a Cameron supporter, and I've always given him a positive rating before now. I gave him a negative rating for May because I feel strongly about grammar schools and I wanted that noted" - EdR @ 21:46.

I said that I was fairly happy with DC's Leadership, having always previously voted very happy. No Brains got very unhappy.

For the love of Dave! Please don't encourage this into a grammar schools thread! I know we haven't had much opportunity to debate grammar schools recently, but I have this strange sense that there might be other topics on which fresher contributions might be made...

So, Richard, do you have any suggestions concerning the topics Cameron should be focusing on - more on the environment, perhaps? Do you think that we should be following three of the Labour Deputy Leadership candidates in recommending all-ethnic-minority PPC shortlists? Do recent difficulties suggest that Cameron hasn't been radical enough in trying to change the Conservative Party's positioning/offering (this is my view - I see his approach as just a more elegant variant of the misguided positioning approach followed since 1997, or even earlier)? Or perhaps Cameron should switch to a strategy of trying to recapture the UKIP voters and stay-at-homes that might be enough for us to win if Labour self-destructs? What do you think?

You're hilarious. You've just taken the poster above to task for being disrespectful while calling him an "idiot". Now, in your next post you are snidely questioning my honesty for no reason.

I don't need a get-out of any kind. Any member of a political party presumably is proud of his/her choice and happy to debate it. By 'trad tory' I simply mean that my politics are those of uncompromising high toryism. Measures not men.

Finally, I would like to see a sound Conservative government but don't think my views would get the time of day in the "Vote Blue Go Green" party. Therefore I am, for the moment, a partisan, hoping to influence from the outside.

I would like to see a sound Conservative government but don't think my views would get the time of day in the "Vote Blue Go Green" party. Therefore I am, for the moment, a partisan, hoping to influence from the outside.

It's no surprise that your views get little time - by the Conservative Party, by the people of the country or by this website. You espouse a fringe position, supported by a dubious band of in-fighting freebooters and in so doing help pro-EU Labour and Liberal Democrats get elected.

The only consolation is the fact that your silly political tactics guarantee you no influence, now or in future. The most worrying is the way that it paints people with real concerns about the EU, working within grown-up parties, with the taint of your party's mindless headbanging.

Am I correct in thinking that what rankled many about the grammar schools issue is not so much the refusal to create more grammar schools, but is more likely the apparent surrender to socialist thinking on selection (grammar schools only benefit middle class children etc); the 1960s’ socialist sounding things like “Grammar school stream in every school”, which a post-er on the Graham Brady thread felt had an echo of Harold Wilson’s claim that comprehensives mean there would be a grammar school education for all; and the denial of opportunity for able children of aspirational lower-income families which can’t afford to pay school fees.

Does Alan S (2130) have a point? That is that the grammar schools saga was the straw that broke the camel’s back after the number of un-conservative pronouncements and policies he listed. To “Forcing Christian charities to accept gay parents” (meaning I think forcing Catholic adoption agencies to place children with same-sex couples against their Biblical beliefs) he could have added “forcing B&B owners to facilitate in their homes behaviour against their deeply held beliefs” as another example of this Labour regulation (which Mr Cameron supports) which seriously attacks the long-held freedoms of religion and to live peacefully according to conscience. This is surely a more serious issue than even grammar schools.

However I still think Mr Cameron is the right leader for the present time. I cannot think of anyone better, but more to the point, he is right to widen our appeal by tackling global warming (although concern for the environment has to include protection of our countryside, open spaces in towns and gardens from development), and public services. We need to demonstrate we have changed and value more than just financial gain, that is, quality of life is important too. I recall Mr Cameron making the point that if damaged families are the price of economic progress, then it’s a price not worth paying.

But we also need to be more ‘right-wing’ on issues where voters tend to be right-wing: e.g. on marriage, crime and law & order, and firmly Eurosceptic. Judging by the small lead we have over Labour in the opinion polls, we obviously haven’t attracted enough Lib Dem and Labour voters to replace core votes lost to UKIP and “Stay At Home”. Perhaps the problem with trying to be socialist or liberal is that socialist and liberal voters vote for the real thing anyway – Labour and the Lib Dems!

A passing phase? Perhaps, perhaps not. This has been a worrying episode for a number of reasons.

Firstly Cameron's response to dissent has been to indulge in abuse: calling the argument pointless, describing those who think there might be something beneficial in Grammar Schools as delusional and so on. Instead of standing his ground and arguing both on principle and on the evidence, he simply sought to shut down the issue by deriding those who have sincerely and sometimes strongly held opinions. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this issue, that was a high-handed way in which to deal with an important matter of policy and will have won Cameron few friends.

Secondly his judgement and competence has been called into question by allowing the issue to drag on for three weeks, by treating two shadow ministers differently for what seems to be the same offence and by making U-Turns every time the going got rough.

Thirdly he has done this at a time when the Conservative party should be out there spoiling the Brown Coronation. Instead he has gifted Labour several free shies at the coconuts.

Fourthly he made a serious error of judgement in hooking off to the Med with the row lumbering on. He seems not to have realised or been bothered by how much damage was being done to him and his colleagues and to how the conservatives will be viewed as a result of this affair. He should have stayed to sort out his mess. Indeed he should not have bunked off while trying to persuade everyone the government is rudderless as Blair swans round the world. Blair can now say that both he and the Leader of the Opposition felt it OK to be absent for a substantial period and therefore there is no problem.

Finally he has managed, at best, to irritate a significant chunk of the 'core vote' as well as give some colleagues a taste for dissent, a genie he may find difficult to put back in the bottle. Neither of these things was very clever.

Henry is right - he doesn't need a 'get-out' clause. The alienation of traditional Tories to UKIP should be of concern to anyone who wants the actual Tory party to embrace proper Tories, and much as UKIP dismays me, I don't think it's appropriate to chuck brickbats in the direction of UKIP members who, I suspect, would love a reason to come back into the fold.

Like Ed R at the beginning of this thread, I had been broadly happy that Cameron understood the startegic problem for the Tory party and was using strong rhetoric to convey a sense of change to the wider public. He seriously mishandled the grammar school issue, though, and this has illuminated, for me, some of the problems of his leadership. Most notably, for all his adjustments to the perceptions of Toryism, he does need to be able to challenge Gordon Brown with a definable, Tory alternative, and not with a warmed up Blairite agenda. He also needs to engage with the wider party; there is a sense that he is holed up in his bunker with his small circle of advisers, and while this may be ok when things are going well, it doesn't give him a great base to fall back on when things crumble.

Grammar schools as an issue will fade soon; Cameron's tactical prowess and political depth will remain issues of debate.

I wonder why Cameron could go to the Med in term time when Parliament has such long holidays anyway. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something.

Before the Grammar school cock up, Cameron also made a mistake not to stop his MPs from voting for the blocking of the Freedom of Information act for Parliament. This showed he wants to have his 'head in the trough' but doesn't want the general public who pay for this to find out. Not good for someone trying to be cleaner than clean.

I agree with everything said by Michael Huntsman | June 04, 2007 at 01:07 as well.

In particular he says 'there is a sense that he [Cameron] is holed up in his bunker with his small circle of advisers'

It is a bit sad that so early in Cameron's 'reign' that he is doing this. But then he is surrounding himself with people similar to himself who believe themselves to be clever and perhaps a tad superior? This does not bode well. Cameron molly coddled background means he doesn't actually know what is happening on the ground in Britain and by surround himself with similarly molly coddled souls he is not finding out from other people.

By sneering at the grass roots of the party over Grammar schools shows he doesn't want to learn. He doesn't mind stopping down to much lower echelons of society to him as he can remain 'superior'. But he won't be held to account by his party. Sounds like someone else we know by the name of T Blair?

Cameron started off good by promising to be collegiate. He is clearly not doing that anymore and this is a major problem. As I am sure there are not many people on this site who want to go through 10 years of Blair Cameron, while he ruins the country further.

England is in a particularly vulnerable state. Labour have spent 10 years destroying it. Will Cameron save it? If not, he will do the Tories all manner of harm for a very long time to come. The Tories might then die as a party.

It is critical that Cameron is part of the party and therefore treats its members respectfully and not try to hijack the party for his own ends. If he really wants another party and does not like the Tories, then he should start his own, and not do what the Blair gang and did. As hijacking a party is easy, but building one from scratch is very hard - ask UKIP.

This is no surprise. I think on DC it's a short term 'sending a message' whereas with Willetts it's probably more permanent.

DC absolutely must now re-engage with the grassroots. If he was planning anything controversial he must junk it (at least for a while) to ensure that the discontent doesn't build. There is absolutely no appetite for a change in leadership but it's certainly possible that such an attitude could develop with a few more badly thought through policies like this one.

The recent national poll drops are indicative of the unhappiness with the two Davids. I think this can lead to two conclusions:
1. The public are supportive of grammar schools
2. Cameron needs to show unity in the party, as well as policy (whether its modernisation or Thatcherite).

I am still supporting and am satisfied with DC, even though I disagree with this policy.

This is not so bad, given that the readers of this site are dominated by UKIPers and extreme right-wingers.

Oh yes of course. But only yesterday 'Tory T' was posting endlessly to say that although the threads have been taken over by 'UKIP Trolls' the CH polls were a reliable guide to grassroots opinion.

Sems like he (and you) have got your answer, and somehow I don't think the press are going to headline this story 'UKIP Trolls hi-jack Tory poll'

Get real! Cameron has shown, as some of us always knew he would, his total unfitness to lead our party, and the people have reacted appropriately. It's happened. We knew it would happen, and the 'Roons are still in a state of shellshock.

Giles you are right. Many UKIPers only seem to have left the Conservative Party when they disagreed with, say, five or six policies. Unfortunately, I think I probably disagree with nearly all of DCs policies now which makes it very very difficult to return. On the other hand I agree with all Nigel Farage's.

At least by keeping the flame of what I consider to be toryism alive during this period, we in UKIP are trying to keep debate going.

It may be that we are doing the wrong thing, but I am sure that Mr Cameron is. On the other hand, I greatly admire his enthusiasm and media savvy. I also like his slightly roguish approach. Nobody really minds being called delusional or whatever by an OE. It is all good fun. I am sure I will be back one day - if you'll have me.

Trad Tory - Why not let the "opportunists" do their thing, and come along to Freedom Association and UKIP events. They are like the FCS!

You never know. Maybe Messrs Cameron Osborne Bridges and Eustice are modernisers bringing the CP up to speed with what is really going on. Nobody is going to welcome your attempt to get them kicked out so you will just frustrate yourself. UKIP conferences are superb with some really interesting and fun people chewing the sandwiches in the breaks. Nigel is usually down the pub so you can wander round for a direct chat with the leader. You've brought in two UKIPers so the CP can do without you for a while I would have thought.

By the way UKIP is only floundering because "Europe" / constitutional matters generally, are not in the news at the moment. I suspect the party will be back at the next by-election.

Jaz is mistaken in claiming that this "site is dominated by UKIPers and extreme right-wingers.

My impression is that few are either, but many are highly critical of Cameron's abandonment of what the vast majority of us have believed and fought for for many years, an abandonment of Tory policies that is not even winning much support.

The Pope does not run the EU: he is only one of many players. The Vatican was strongly supportive of the EU project from the beginning, albeit that enthusiasm has waned somewhat in recent years as it has become apparent that Christianity would have no special place, and perhaps eventually no place at all, within the envisaged European superstate. Other players were also strongly supportive of the EU project from the beginning, or switched over to supporting it at some point for their own reasons, and some of those have also lost their enthusiasm as it has become apparent that it would not serve their interests as they expected.

Richard Carey @ 22:14: "A fight takes at least two. Is “picking a fight” simply moving from one old ideological shibboleth in terms of policy if you think it isn’t doing its job any more?"

I'd say that "one old ideological shibboleth" is deliberately inflammatory language, and anybody who uses it (or words like "delusional") is indeed picking a fight.

That's quite apart from the fact that you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "shibboleth".

However, if you insist on misusing the word, maybe you should consider whether Willetts and Cameron have simply moved on from one old ideological shibboleth to another old, and now discredited, ideological shibboleth.

There's a letter in the Bucks Free Press this week, unfortunately not yet on-line, from one J P Barlow, Wycombe Constituency Labour Party. It starts:

"Members of Wycombe Labour Party were surprised but nonetheless very pleased to hear the policy announcement and surrounding comments by David Willets last week on the subject of selection in education.

The statement that selection does very little to increase social mobility and generally entrenches inequality to the detriment of children from poorer and ethnic minority backgrounds represents a belief we have always held.

At long last to hear it from both the Conservative Shadow Education Minister and the Conservative Party leader, especially with an explicit acceptance that selection was not only wasteful but "wrong" filled us with a sense of great hope.

The hope is that after more than 30 years from a time when selective education first began to be swept away, now there is a unified view across all the major political parties in this country with respect to genuine equality of opportunity in education; the best state education will become open to all children.

The Conservative Party's acceptance that it is "a fantasy" that the 11-plus examination can distinguish between the academic abilities of primary school children is long overdue.

Our hope, however, is tempered by bitter experience of the views and actions of the majority of Conservative politicians both nationally and, more importantly, locally in Buckinghamshire."

After referring to plans to build at least one new grammar school in Bucks, the letter continues:

"Tories must concede that it is impossible to maintain that selection is wasteful and wrong while at the same time promoting and extending it. It is either wrong or it is not. They as a party must choose their position."

and concludes with this:

"If they really do believe what they have said about academic selection being wrong then we genuinely applaud David Cameron and David Willets. They could prove their sincerity by acting where they do have the power to act: in Buckinghamshire, Kent and a number of other local authorities around the country where the Conservative Party has control and selection remains wrong."

Richard Carey @ 22:14: "A fight takes at least two. Is “picking a fight” simply moving from one old ideological shibboleth in terms of policy if you think it isn’t doing its job any more?"

I'd say that "one old ideological shibboleth" is deliberately inflammatory language, and anybody who uses it (or words like "delusional") is indeed picking a fight.

That's quite apart from the fact that you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "shibboleth".

However, if you insist on misusing the word, maybe you should consider whether Willetts and Cameron have simply moved on from one old ideological shibboleth to another old, and now discredited, ideological shibboleth.

There's a letter in the Bucks Free Press this week, unfortunately not yet on-line, from one J P Barlow, Wycombe Constituency Labour Party. It starts:

"Members of Wycombe Labour Party were surprised but nonetheless very pleased to hear the policy announcement and surrounding comments by David Willets last week on the subject of selection in education.

The statement that selection does very little to increase social mobility and generally entrenches inequality to the detriment of children from poorer and ethnic minority backgrounds represents a belief we have always held.

At long last to hear it from both the Conservative Shadow Education Minister and the Conservative Party leader, especially with an explicit acceptance that selection was not only wasteful but "wrong" filled us with a sense of great hope.

The hope is that after more than 30 years from a time when selective education first began to be swept away, now there is a unified view across all the major political parties in this country with respect to genuine equality of opportunity in education; the best state education will become open to all children.

The Conservative Party's acceptance that it is "a fantasy" that the 11-plus examination can distinguish between the academic abilities of primary school children is long overdue.

Our hope, however, is tempered by bitter experience of the views and actions of the majority of Conservative politicians both nationally and, more importantly, locally in Buckinghamshire."

After referring to plans to build at least one new grammar school in Bucks, the letter continues:

"Tories must concede that it is impossible to maintain that selection is wasteful and wrong while at the same time promoting and extending it. It is either wrong or it is not. They as a party must choose their position."

and concludes with this:

"If they really do believe what they have said about academic selection being wrong then we genuinely applaud David Cameron and David Willets. They could prove their sincerity by acting where they do have the power to act: in Buckinghamshire, Kent and a number of other local authorities around the country where the Conservative Party has control and selection remains wrong."

One of the arguments for Cameron's disgraceful abandonment of the Grammar School concept is that it prohibits/retards social mobility.
I came from a very working class family, went to a first class Grammar School, have an MBA and my son is studying for his PhD.
If this is not social mobility, what is?

Cameron is a wishy-washy disgrace to to his party. At the next election, for the first time in my 63 years, I will not be voting Conservative.
He is a disaster.

"Most members appreciate David Cameron’s success at attracting moderate voters back to the Tory cause. What members would like, however, is a leader who listens a little more to their concerns and spends more time maintaining the breadth of the conservative coalition – from the centre ground and through to the centre right".- Editor

That certainly sums up my point of view very accurately and I suspect that of many others.

If it becomes clear that Cameron, like Blair, has merely hijacked the party, what are the Tories going to do about it?

After all, old Labour had many faults but it also had many good things, whereas New Labour is about power pure and simple. Hence the Police State being built up with their hands fully and firmly in the till.

While old Toryism has lots to recommend it whereas a new Tory party created by D Cameron may become as vile as new Labour.

Thanks Giles but I am very happy with my life. What must it be like to be a Conservative Party candidate at the moment?

I strongly disagree with the party's policies and am dedicated to opposing them. Personally, I think it right to do so outside the Party. The fascinating question is whether it will ever come back to my position. I can't see myself changing my political principles when they seem to me to be borne out by experience of life every day.

I believe that Toryism is what made this country great, respected throughout the world.

Cameron is a fraud. In the leadership election he promised to withdraw immediately from EPP and then broke that promise after getting the job.

He claims to be a democrat, who wants to 'trust the people'. Yet he supported the recent decision of the party's board to protect our mostly europhile MEPs from any possibility of being democratically de-selected by the party membership. Why can't the Cameron Conservative Party be democratic?

We haven't yet learned who the real David Cameron is. What we have learned is that we can't believe a word he says.

I know from personal experience that grammar schools help social mobility. When Cameron attempts to tell us the opposite he is just plain wrong.

He began his leadership by distancing himself from Margaret Thatcher and, 18 months on, he is now claiming to be the heir of Blair. He appearsd to be deliberately annoying Conservatives - including UKIP conservatives - in order to position himself as an anti-Conservative in the eyes of the wider electorate.

We are expected to be loyal to him and support him in this deception because the back-room belief is that this is the only way he can get himself elected. But can we be sure it is a deception?

I would rather we pursued a more open and honest campaign for the hearts and minds of the people.

"If you stream properly, even the bullies who normally target "clever" children, will be too enthused by being able to succeed at something"

In my experience they tend to be in all the bottom sets. Perhaps a greater emphasis on vocational education might benefit them. but that might mean dividing between grammar and technical schools...

Regarding the survey findings, I'm not really surprised. In the past I have given Cameron and Willetts positive ratings but this time I marked them down due to the recent cockup. Willetts shouldn't have mentioned grammar schools and Cameron shouldn't have used insulting language to describe the grass roots.

You do have a valid point. It probably comes from other sites having software like Blogger.com that catches missing end-parenthesis.....you use a package different from any other Blog I have posted on and so sometimes speed of one-finger typing catches me out.

I stopped posting here months ago because I was so disgusted by the utter rubbish that was being posted in support of the crazy new direction of the party. It was totally obvious to me that most of these posts were being put on by CCO staff posing as ordinary members.

Now all the warnings seem to be coming true and taking a quick look through recent posts it looks as if sense is prevailing once more.

It is interesting to read people's comments about grammar schools. Scotland and Wales seem to reasonably without them. I don't have any statistics close to hand but I think I am right in saying that educational standards are higher in Scotland and in Wales than in England. But there again they seem to cope without Tory MPs too.

Ref. some previous posts: You might like to confirm that 'UKIP Trolls' who fill in the form but state that they are supporters of an Other party as I did, are not counted in your register of Conservative Party opinion stats.

I have no need to lie or to attempt to ruin a CH poll of the Conservative Party. I am quite happy for them to express themselves.

Scotland and Wales seem to reasonably without them. I don't have any statistics close to hand

Both have socialised basket-case economies dependent upon transfer payments. Wales has some of the lowest wage costs in Europe.

Scotland has a moribund private sector and a non-dynamic economy with falling population.

I prefer Switzerland it has a smaller proportion of pupils going to University than Britain but an outstanding technical education and local autonomy with excellent infrastructure.

Scotland is a pitiful state with Glasgow failing on every WHO statistic going. It seems funny to hold up such a bastion of 1930s Socialism as Scotland as an example to anyone, and Wales exported its Japanese factories to Poland and Czech Republic where quality personnel are available and Czech graduate engineers very cost-effective...plus which noone wants to move to Wales as ONS is discovering

Its time for the party to reconsider its selection of Cameron as its leader.
Cameron is a man with lots of high class education (which he is prepared to withold from the less fortunate) but very little common sense.
His high ratings are more a result a falling out of love with Blair rather than a falling in love with Cameron.
He has fast become a Blair in blue (or is it green)and his new lovers are fast disappearing.
As a life time Conservative voter my choice was David Davies (a born leader with more than his share of common sense)but I can't see myself voting for another Blair in a different coloured coat.

Thank you Tom for offering me some political education. There is a subliminal message in my earlier correspondence you don't seem to have picked up. Like you, I admire the Swiss. Such a clean and friendly country. The Germans have a good system of technical education too.

Working to bring down the elected leader of your own party so soon after he was elected is sheer mindless stupidity. Anyone Tory member who wants another leader before the next election should resign. There's a home for you in UKIP. You'd rather see us lose than have Cameron leading a Tory adminstration.

Loyalty cuts both ways. Cameron is showing no loyalty to a great many members and supporters who see him and his coterie happy to abandon long held conservative principles and policies.

Willetts may have two brains, unfortunately neither seems to work very well. His speech to the CBI was poorly crafted and astonishingly ill timed. One can only assume that Letwin helped in the drafting.

Years ago there was cartoon of Major walking past a banana skin only to return so that he could slip on it. Cameron et al are displaying even greater incompetence.

It is on the question of competence that the current leadership should be judged and the grammar school fiasco has been seminal.

Denis Cooper: That's quite apart from the fact that you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "shibboleth".

Firstly, I don’t need to have my understanding questioned by you. I was using the word not in its literal meaning, as I’m sure you well know, but in the context of the biblical tale where it was used as a linguistic password, something to enable you to distinguish between friend and foe. I was cautioning my fellow members against venerating too many past touchstone positions regardless of their current relevance. I’m sure you’ll permit my omission of the quotation marks in retrospect.

I'd say that "one old ideological shibboleth" is deliberately inflammatory language, and anybody who uses it (or words like "delusional") is indeed picking a fight.

Secondly, I’m not sure you’re quite clear where you think the “fight” is? It’s evidently not between the “grassroots members” and the leadership, as I’m a voluntary activist myself, and I presume you are too.

I’m quite happy to take on (and win) a fight with the likes of you if I really had to any day of the week, but I’d very much rather be fighting Labour, LibDems and the minor parties, and I’d hope you’d rather I was too. I’ve always been a proponent here of bringing as many people as possible along through explanation and discussion as we modernise the Party, and I still believe that’s the way to go. I have a great deal of respect for the Editor’s “politics of and”, and I’ve written here before about our own successful implementation of that here on the ground on a very local level. I’m not deliberately seeking a “Clause 4” moment, I genuinely want Conservatives from the whole spectrum of the Party to keep working together and stay focused on winning, but posts like yours do tempt me pretty severely.

There may be a point eventually at which we have to finally say “you’ve had time, you’ve had discussions, now get on board, or get out of our way, because we’re coming through anyway.” But don’t make it today, please, because we all have work to do here!

It seems to me that if it is the case that Cameron and his advisors are following the Mike Smithson described approach, i.e. it doesn't matter what you say so long as it gets you the media coverage, then this is the ultimate triumph of the worst aspect of Blairism. Perhaps that's what Osborne actually meant when he described the current leadership as the heirs of Blair?

The weird thing is of course that the electorate seemingly despise Blair and most of his works and are sick to death of the spin and PR spivery currently dominating how their country is run. So it does seem strange that any political party would want to carry in that way, let alone move from being a principle and belief based organisation to one that places publicity, be it good or bad, before anything else.

Cynical Voter: Will only Conservative Party members be allowed to vote Conservative in future ?

Of course not -and I would think that electoral law would probably have something to say about that! We want (and are working hard) to broaden our appeal, to attract new support in additon to those who have supported our party in the past. In order to win, we're looking to raise our share of the vote from 30+% to 40+% - and we're slowly achieving that in real national elections.

I apologise if my attitude to my political opponents here has contributed to your view. You're probably right if you think that some of us activists on the "inside" of the political debate need to step back from time to time and remind ourselves again that politics is all about people. I think that the past few weeks have probably proven that...

Don' know about Welsh schools, but Scottish ones are pretty much a hopeless shambles. You should note that a greater proportion of Scottish children go to public (i.e. fee-paying) schools than they do in England.

"..but I’d very much rather be fighting Labour, LibDems and the minor parties.."

And you do that by deriding the grass-roots of the Party with condescending and inflammatory language, i.e. accusations of being 'delusional'. Cameron became an MP in 2001, when the cry at the election from the Tories was "A grammar school in every town".

If he disagreed with so many of these policies, why did he run under this banner ? Why did he not join the Labour party - his views fit with them.

What ideology does he have beyond simply obtaining and retaining office ? More to the point, what conservative ideology does he embrance ? So far, it seems none. waiting to find out.

Cameron states that he likes the country as it is, not as it was in the past. That being so, why is he in opposition when he clearly so loves the country that has been shaped in Tony's social Marxist model ? Surely he should be challenging Gordon Brown for the leadership of the Labour Party - they need a contest, afterall.

Education and the private school factor is one area where that part of this scepter'd isle that will be forever England ie Edinburgh is totally out of step with the rest of the country!

However the state sector is suffering from a severe deterioration in educational and disciplinary standards such that the once proud boast of the superiority of Scottish education is a far distant memory and it is hard to blame parents for wishing to obtain the best start for their children.

The tragedy is that increasingly the state sector is no longer able to provide this. Another thing to blame Labour for is their attempts at social engineering and the abolition of the traditional Scot's High School system and the introduction of Comprehensives back in 1971 -thanks to Anthony Crosland, secretary of state for education in the 1964-1970 Labour government. The rot can be firmly traced back to that decision.

Crank Parent, http://web.mac.com/morag_davidson / 9:18am 18 Apr 2007

"But one parents' leader last night said that, while independent schools offered a good education, pupils could also be very well served by the state sector."

I agree, as long as you can afford to live in the right catchment area.

My eldest daughter is very gifted - in the top 0.5% of gifted children her age in the UK. Unfortunately, our local high school is Inveralmond Community High School in Livingston (the 10th worst in Scotland). There wasn't a chance in hell we'd get her into Linlithgow Academy or the The Royal High in Edinburgh (she went to Davidson's Mains Primary School), so we had to look at getting her a scholarship at a private school. We are not well off, in fact, we officially live below the poverty line, so this was the only way to make sure she gets a decent education (and isn't driven to suicide, which is a real risk for Gifted and Talented children).

We were really lucky that she got a scholarship and a bursary and we don't have to pay, otherwise she would be at her local high school having her life wasted. I worry about our other 4 children (who are all clever too) as we can't assume they will get the same privilege.

Cauchy Riemann, Wales / 2:15pm 18 Apr 2007

Next September I'll be taking my children out of my local state primary school. It's a good school, but I've lost all faith in the State system. Left wing PC idiots have put real education on the backburner and seem more interested in the latest politically correct social engineering project. The school has no Muslims, but spends vast amounts of time presenting Islam as a 'fact' as part of the National Curiculum. The recent test project to introduce compulsory gay books from 4 years old is simply a form of religious indoctrination (political correctness is a religion to its adherents). So bye bye state education.

The independent schools census also revealed that 4.2 per cent of all Scottish pupils - one in 23 - were enrolled in the private sector in 2006, compared with 3.9 per cent in 2000.

If the electorate ( as opposed to the Party Members) do not see David Cameron as a true Conserative there is a very good chance that they might vote UKIP, as they do seem to be the obvious alterative.
I would rather see us win with Davis than lose with Cameron.
If the best advice you can offer to waver's with a genuine doubt is to suggest they vote for another party, am I right in assuming that you believe an election can be won with the votes of the True Blue Membership only?
I for one, would never take advice from anyone using a pen name.

As I said on a previous occasion, David Cameron will not stand up for grammar schools because he knows there's no votes to be gained in it. To win over floating voters necessary for the Conservatives to win the next election, he will need to show that he is serious about the education of children of all abilities. Promoting grammar schools sends out the wrong messages.

The Right however know that grammar schools transmit Conservative values much more so than comprehensives. The experience of Scotland and Wales has been, get rid of grammar schools and Tory MPs go next. Isn't that waht the Right fears for the long term?

As I said on a previous occasion, David Cameron will not stand up for grammar schools because he knows there's no votes to be gained in it. To win over floating voters necessary for the Conservatives to win the next election, he will need to show that he is serious about the education of children of all abilities. Promoting grammar schools sends out the wrong messages.

The Right however know that grammar schools transmit Conservative values much more so than comprehensives. The experience of Scotland and Wales has been, get rid of grammar schools and Tory MPs go next. Isn't that waht the Right fears for the long term?

The editor's comments include " Very few members want a different leader." That is not my interpretation of the mood of the public at large or of the membership. Not since Ted Heath have I met such negative reactions to a Tory leader. The almost universal complaint is that "we do not know what he believes in beneath all the spin".
After ten years of corruption and deceit from the Blair government we should be way out in front.